What’s Missing in the News Report on Prof. Korantwi-Barimah?

Journalism is guided by core principles, including fairness, balance, accuracy and integrity. These principles ensure that the public receives reliable, comprehensive and unbiased information. In the news story concerning Prof. Justice Solomon Korantwi-Barimah, the Pro-Vice Chancellor of Sunyani Technical University, who has been sued at the Commercial Court of the Sunyani High Court for academic dishonesty, the journalist, Daniel Y Dayee, failed to present the side of Prof. Korantwi-Barimah. This omission raises significant concerns about the quality and ethical standards of the reporting. This analysis critically examines the missing elements of news reporting in the story and provides an objective critique, highlighting the importance of balanced journalism.

Missing Critical Elements of News Reporting
Balance and Fairness: Balance and fairness are foundational to ethical journalism. A balanced report provides a platform for all sides of a story, especially when the story involves allegations that could damage someone's reputation. In this case, the journalist did not include Prof. Korantwi-Barimah's perspective, which is crucial for the audience to understand the full context of the allegations. By omitting his side, the report fails to uphold the principle of fairness, resulting in a one-sided narrative that may mislead readers.

Accuracy and Verification: Accuracy in journalism is not just about presenting facts; it involves verifying those facts through multiple sources. The lack of effort to include the accused's response raises questions about the thoroughness of the verification process. In legal matters, such as a lawsuit for academic dishonesty, verifying the claims against all parties is essential. Failing to hear from Prof. Korantwi-Barimah leaves the report incomplete and potentially inaccurate, as his insights or counter-arguments could provide critical information that might alter the perception of the case.

Objectivity: Objectivity requires journalists to remain impartial and present the facts without bias. By not including the response from Prof. Korantwi-Barimah, the journalist's report lacks objectivity. The audience is only exposed to the allegations without understanding the defense or explanation of the accused. This approach not only biases the report but also risks influencing public opinion unfairly. Journalism should facilitate informed public discourse, and that can only happen when reports are objective and free from partiality.

Right of Reply: The right of reply is an ethical standard that allows individuals or entities to respond to allegations made against them. It is particularly important in stories that could harm someone's reputation or standing. Prof. Korantwi-Barimah was entitled to this right, and the journalist had a duty to provide him with an opportunity to share his side of the story. By failing to do so, the journalist not only violates a key ethical principle but also undermines the credibility of the report.

Completeness: A complete news story includes all relevant perspectives, providing the audience with a holistic view of the situation. The omission of Prof. Korantwi-Barimah's response results in an incomplete narrative that leaves critical gaps in the audience's understanding. A complete report would include the details of the lawsuit, the allegations and the accused’s response or efforts to obtain it, offering a comprehensive account of the issue at hand.

Legal and Ethical Considerations: Reporting on legal matters requires careful navigation to avoid defamation or prejudicing a case. Journalists must be mindful of the legal implications of their reports, ensuring they do not imply guilt before a legal determination is made. By presenting only the allegations without the accused's defense, the journalist risks defaming Prof. Korantwi-Barimah and prejudicing public perception against him, which is both legally risky and ethically irresponsible.

Critique of the Story
Lack of Due Diligence: A key aspect of journalistic due diligence is the effort to obtain all relevant perspectives. In this case, it appears the journalist did not make sufficient attempts to contact Prof. Korantwi-Barimah or his representatives for a comment. This lack of effort diminishes the integrity of the report and suggests a neglect of basic journalistic standards. Due diligence would involve reaching out to the accused multiple times and clearly stating in the report if there were difficulties in obtaining a response.

Potential Bias: By failing to present the side of Prof. Korantwi-Barimah, the report risks appearing biased. Bias in journalism can undermine public trust and compromise the perceived neutrality of the news outlet. This story, as presented, leans heavily on the allegations without balancing them with counter-narratives or defenses. Such bias can skew public perception, leading to premature judgments about the accused's guilt or innocence.

Ethical Violation: The omission of the accused's side is a significant ethical violation. Journalism ethics emphasize the importance of fairness, accountability and the right of reply. The report's failure to adhere to these principles not only impacts the subject of the story but also the credibility of the journalist and the publication. Ethical journalism involves presenting all sides of a story, particularly when serious accusations are involved, to ensure that the reporting is fair and just.

Impact on Public Perception: News reports significantly influence public perception, especially in cases involving allegations of misconduct or legal proceedings. By not including Prof. Korantwi-Barimah’s perspective, the report potentially harms his reputation and standing within the academic and broader community. This one-sided portrayal can lead to a skewed public understanding of the case, with readers forming opinions based on incomplete information. Responsible journalism should strive to inform, not mislead, the public by providing a balanced view of all relevant information.

Risk of Legal Ramifications: The one-sided nature of the report also exposes the publication to potential legal risks. Reporting allegations without the accused's response can be construed as defamatory, particularly if the report implies guilt. Legal proceedings require careful and balanced reporting to avoid accusations of defamation or prejudicial statements that could influence the court's or public's perception of the case. By not adhering to these standards, the journalist and publication may face legal challenges, further complicating the matter.

Editorial Oversight: The absence of Prof. Korantwi-Barimah’s side suggests a lack of proper editorial oversight. Editors play a crucial role in ensuring that journalistic standards are upheld, including verifying that all sides of a story are presented. This oversight failure indicates that the editorial process may not have been rigorous enough to catch and correct the imbalance in the reporting. Effective editorial oversight would involve reviewing the story for completeness and fairness before publication.

Recommendations for Improvement
Follow-Up Reporting: To address the imbalance, a follow-up report should be published, including Prof. Korantwi-Barimah’s response or the results of further attempts to contact him. This would help restore balance to the coverage and provide readers with a more complete understanding of the issue.

Proactive Outreach: Journalists should make proactive and persistent efforts to reach all relevant parties, particularly in contentious stories. This might include contacting the accused through multiple channels and documenting these efforts transparently in the report.

Transparency with Readers: If attempts to contact the accused were made but unsuccessful, the report should transparently communicate this to the readers. This shows that the journalist made an effort to be fair, even if the response was not obtained. Transparency helps build trust with the audience, as it demonstrates the journalist’s commitment to balanced reporting.

Strengthening Editorial Review Processes: Newsrooms should strengthen their editorial review processes to ensure that all reports meet the highest standards of journalistic integrity. Editors should check for balance, fairness, and completeness, particularly in stories involving legal or ethical issues.

Training on Legal and Ethical Reporting: Journalists and editors should receive regular training on legal and ethical considerations in reporting, particularly when covering lawsuits or allegations. This training would help ensure that all stories are handled with the necessary sensitivity and adherence to journalistic standards.

Conclusion
The news story on Prof. Justice Solomon Korantwi-Barimah serves as a critical reminder of the importance of adhering to journalistic principles of balance, fairness, accuracy and integrity. By failing to present all sides of the story, particularly that of the accused, the report not only falls short of these standards but also risks damaging the reputation of the individuals involved and the credibility of the publication. Responsible journalism requires thoroughness, objectivity and a commitment to ethical reporting. By addressing these shortcomings and implementing the recommended improvements, journalists can better serve the public and uphold the trust that is essential to the profession.

The writer of this article, Dr. Richmond Acheampong, is a journalist, columnist, PR expert and journalism and media studies lecturer at Christian Service University. Email: [email protected]